TS: Godfather vs Godfather II

i recently discovered that in the many non-canon Godfather novels published post-Puzo, there is one that has Michael befriending JFK (by another name) in their youth because their fathers are both bootleggers.

The guy does become president, but is shot in Miami, not Dallas.

Maybe Tarantino should buy the rights.

Heard a radio promo for an upcoming show by Gianni Russo at a casino in Niagara Falls. "You know him from The Godfather"--well, not immediately, had to look up the name. It's Carlo! Tempted to go, just so I can walk up to him at some point and say, "You have to answer for Santino, Carlo."

http://www.fallsviewcasinoresort.com/entertainment/event/gianni-russo

Just don't tell him your username.

I served as godfather for my friend's son's baptism today. I'm a devout non-churchgoer, so we had to, uh, finesse the paperwork a bit.

Anyway, I had to suppress a giggle when I was asked if I renounce Satan. Tomorrow, I settle all family business.

What I really wanted to do was give the Pentangeli answer:

"Do you renounce Satan and all his works?"

"Yeah...sure."

http://www.stinque.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pentangeli-480x220.jpg

I had the VHS of the Godfather epic and its the one that I know.

it turns the whole thing into a sprawling dynasty tale to be enjoyed over consecutive nights... the third doesn't even seem as bad, when you dont see the joins between each film... (although its pretty obvious when we hit no.3)

Madness that its not available on DVD/Blu-Ray!

I think its available in the US on streaming, but never managed to get a VPN to make it work.

this lockdown has me jonesing for a big sprawling well made epic to take up a few evenings.

Have at it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03Z9H9mG-SI

dexter fletcher directing intrigues me but part of me is kinda cringing at how this could go?

will give it a go though

Begs for an actual documentary.

One of my go-to lines is, "Tell Mike it was only business. I always liked him."

Begs for an actual documentary.

I read the Harlan Lebo making-of book many years ago, and there are definitely amazing stories there, but trying to dramatize it...I even bailed on the trailer when I heard "It's a metaphor for the American dream." The guy does look like Robert Evans, I'll give him that.

Probably get more mileage out of this treatment for De Palma’s Scarface.

I always have the same problem with shit like this & Being the Ricardos: "Oh no, will they be successful at making The Godfather??"

This could be terrible, yet I'm intrigued.

Lou Ferrigno as Lenny Montana is pretty good casting

I had to check to see if that was really him, my goodness he has aged well

update

it is very dumb, often insists on repurposing lines from the movie in different contexts like WE GET IT. PLEASE DON’T DO THAT. also we’re 4 eps in, already up to 4 cannoli references. STAHP.

Michael Goode is great as Robert Evans,
Dan Fogler’s Coppola also great, Burn Gorman does a nice Bluhdorn. The movie-specific story is engaging even with annoying biopic exposition, but there’s a lot of sidestory w Italian American League that is tedious, and Ruddy’s lovelife storyline is kinda deadweight imo.

It’s based on “Albert Ruddy’s experiences making the Godfather” which is weirdly specific & so he takes credit for pretty much everything short of the weather bc everyone else on the studio side is dead & cant sue him. Plus he’s 92 so i guess he wants his flowers.

I am kinda enjoying it now that I have accepted that it is kinda trash, sorta like a vh1 biopic. Hard not to get sucked into the story though bc hey, it’s thd Godfather yknow?

oh and Juno Temple is great, maybe my favorite

is there a scene i'm forgetting or looking at my phone during or something where michael and carlo interact at all between michael's return from sicily and their confrontation during/after the baptism? the structure of 1 is so solid and every little ironic turn (the undertaker payoff-- a weakened don having to buy peace by locking his remaining children into the drug business he fears-- michael's "escape" in sicily and his dreamlike trad marriage only knitting him deeper into the "thing" he will return to imprison kay in, both thru the ritual of the marriage itself and thru its vendetta-driven termination) is so carefully-even-mechanically set-up/paid-off, it is weird that this crime of michael's that is clearly meant to carry all this weight (summoning talia shire for her second big scene etc) doesn't seem to have anything balancing and leading towards it. i guess the sleight-of-mind is to encourage us to project our own feelings about connie/carlo/sonny onto michael, since we were actually there for the whole thing, and not on a different continent.

still prefer 2 for leaning into the epic qualities but 1 is v committed to being a perfect melodrama in a deliberately old-fashioned way that makes tiny questions like this diverting to me in a way they wouldn't be about a sloppier movie.

(not a "plot hole" question about like "why would michael want carlo dead"-- this is plain enough-- just feels like a missing floorboard that he never looks across a room at him and smolders silently or anything.)

Michael is such a genius mastermind that he didn't need to be there to figure out what happened.

yeah obviously he (and-- connie says-- everyone) suspects (and then he confirms). i'm not saying how did he know. it's just mostly the kind of movie where we would be able to see him knowing at some earlier point. 2 feels less of an obligation about this kind of thing.

I don't think there's any set-up for Michael ambushing Carlos at the end. I hadn't thought about it before your question, but now I'd say that's one of the reasons that last scene is so scary: it happens out of the blue.

it happens out of the blue

this is true-- a contrast, too, between his actual sudden murder (a decision of michael's) and the slow formal forseen see-off of abe vigoda (advice of the don's). modernist vs postmodernist godfathering

To me, this is the point: nothing gets past him and he is indeed settling ALL scores.

Fredo and Johnny Ola got past him in II; it was only Fredo's slip-up at the Cuban club that alerted him.

Different film

yeah, it was the 'keep your friends close, enemies closer', aka, delay the fuck out of your vendettas so people get complacent and don't see them coming.

part of how Michael let the five families, Moe Green, even his own family members think the Corleone family had weakened so that the assassinations take everybody by surprise and he's back at the top of the heap, moving to Nevada with a big 'fuck you' on the way out.

xxpost did they, though? I mean he pretty much knew it was Hymen Roth from the beginning, used Pentageli as bait, and I'm sure he had to have some suspicions that the most obvious mark in the family is his doofus brother.

he just has incredible patience and plays the long game in testing his suspicions.

also how dumb is Fredo that he can't remember what he said ten minutes ago.

I think the scene where Michael declares Carlo his new right-hand man in Nevada provides something like the planking for the assassination scene, but it's only really apparent in hindsight. You don't notice it in the moment since there's so much happening in the scene, but in hindsight, it's obvious that it made absolutely no sense for Michael to promote Carlo to that level (he has no reason to put that kind of trust in Carlo) unless it was to keep Carlo close.

which is another thing that baffles Hagen, not only is he fired, but you make THIS prick your partner?

but of course he doesn't read between the lines, cos he ain't no wartime consigliere

Michael knew about Roth, for sure--figured him out early--but I really believe he had no inclination Fredo was involved. His reaction when Fredo lets Johnny Ola's name slip strikes me as genuine shock and dismay.

https://phildellio.tripod.com/ola.jpg

I think the scene where Michael declares Carlo his new right-hand man in Nevada provides something like the planking for the assassination scene

! yes this is it, tho clem's point still applies imo. thanks to all

there are things being negotiated now that are gonna solve all your problems and answer all your questions

Tessio is also maybe dispatched with a certain amount of honor because Michael really does know it was strictly business, whereas with Carlo he knew it was personal (also Carlo being actually a member of the family of course.)

We don’t see Tessio’s death but we can imagine something quick vs the torturous ugly and not even hidden nature of Carlo’s demise (I hope they didn’t pass any honest cops on the way to the quarry or whatever, with C-man’s legs sticking out the windshield!)

if you read the book, you were treated to descriptions of each victim's sphincters releasing by Puzo

def but it's also implied that michael (ironically given icy performance and intended grooming for abstracted stringholding legitimacy) kills personally where his father would not right? connie says "you waited until no one could stop you" (revived thread because of this line prob)-- much is made mid-movie of the don's refusal to continue vendetta over the v same crime, sonny's death-- then we are shown these two formally identical "go out to the car" executions w these v diff vibes+meanings-- and it's the business one that follows posthumously from the don's final preoccupation+command and the personal one that is part of some kind of step into new territory for michael?-- (also of course the one that leads him to discover he can lie to kay's face)

it's just mostly the kind of movie where we would be able to see him knowing at some earlier point. 2 feels less of an obligation about this kind of thing.

I feel like Part 1 gets trickier in this respect as it goes along. Initially, we're allowed to follow Michael's thinking very closely, and we see the sequence of events clearly as one thing leads to another. When Michael takes over as Don, he becomes much more of a closed-book, we're given much narrower glimpses into his thinking, at times he's bluffing the audience as much as his associates and his enemies. The scenes feel more fragmentary, and it's only afterwards that they all fall into place.

yes! all i rly meant by modernist vs postmodernist godfathering was that the last third of this felt way more like 2 than i'd remembered.

(in that spirit then i should say leads "us" to discover he can lie to kay's face)

DLH, I forget the more minute and precise differences in the scenes but generally I feel maybe like Hagen handling Tessio’s goodbye vs Michael dealing w/Carlo more personally ties in with that

yes-- tessio even tries a final futile explicitly personal appeal to tom, but (the conditions do not allow, and) tom is a robot

that was a bit of a ruse, I took Connie's lines to be more reflective of her naivety. The Don's speech wasn't him actually foregoing vengeance, it was a clever sleight of hand. He promised that *he* would not be the one to break the peace made that day (but he made NO promises for his son, when he took over as Don).

Vito had clearly seen Barzini was muscling in on Corleone territory and after acquiring protection of judges, that wasn't likely to stop. The Corleone family was practically getting 'chased out of New York', as Moe Greene said, and the only way the equilibrium-resetting assassination of the 5 heads would work is if the Corleones feigned weakness. Vito going into retirement, transitioning to a peaceful, old wine-drinking man, the Corleones trying to expand into Nevada, which to the untrained eye, looked like them trying to flee New York rather than an intentional business strategy.

Vito was a violent man, no different than any other Don, but he knew if he got his vendetta against Sonny right then and there, the war would continue, and they weren't in a good place to win - next up to be whacked might be Michael, or Tom, or Vito himself. But I have no doubt he wanted revenge.

You even see Vito coaching Michael for what's to come, you just think at the time he's helping him avoid being betrayed by Tessio, but Vito also says there are reasons why Hagen can't be involved with what's to come, which almost certainly means "war and blood is coming". and the reasons Hagen can't be involved, besides "not being a wartime consiglieri", is that as soon as the five heads of the families, Moe Greene, and Carlo are dead, he'll most certainly be reinstalled in his position on arrival to Vegas, and it removes the risk of Hagen being incarcerated along with the other members of the family for these crimes as he has no foreknowledge. it's also possible they thought Hagen would try to shut it down, as it was a crazy idea.

Godfather II was truly the film where Michael broke w/ his father and became ruthless in a way that was positively unhinged, a need to win despite the costs. In a way he was more like Sonny in terms of his rage, but not his recklessness.

xxxxpost

what if it was 1977 and Michael was engaged to Annie Halll

Vito also says there are reasons why Hagen can't be involved with what's to come, which almost certainly means "war and blood is coming". and the reasons Hagen can't be involved, besides "not being a wartime consiglieri", is that as soon as the five heads of the families, Moe Greene, and Carlo are dead, he'll most certainly be reinstalled in his position on arrival to Vegas, and it removes the risk of Hagen being incarcerated along with the other members of the family for these crimes as he has no foreknowledge.

I hadn't thought of this. Is this from the novel?

I don't remember, to be honest - I read it in high school. but the book does have a lot more insight into the thinking of the individual family members that kind of fills in gaps.

I always felt that they were protecting him in a way just from the way that scene unfolds.